Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/417

vinay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Rai, Advocate

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 417 of 02.09.2019

Date of Decision            :   14.11.2019

Vinay Kumar aged about 50 years son of late Sh.Suresh Kumar, resident of Villa No.56, Sun View Enclave, village Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, also resident of 131, Country Home East, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, at M/s India Bulls Finance Centre, 4^th Floor, Tower-1, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400013, through its Managing Director/Directors/Incharge.

2.M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, SCO-16-17, 1^st Floor, Fortune Chamber, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001, through its Branch Head/Manager/Incharge.

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :        Ms.Khushbo Dawar, Advocate Junior to

                                                Sh.Sukhwinder Singh Rai, Advocate

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                   Details of home loans availed by the complainant from Ops is given below:-

i) Loan No. HHELUD00466917, amount of loan Rs.40,10,000/-

ii) Loan No. HHLLUD00292761, amount of loan Rs.1,50,00,000/-

iii) Loan No. HLAPLUD00199636, amount of loan Rs.1,00,00,000/-

iv)Loan No.  HHLLUD00466892, amount of loan Rs.58,90,000/-

v) Loan No.HHLLUD00377419, amount of loan Rs.50,00,000/-

However, it is claimed that excessive foreclosure amounts has been charged from the complainant. Details of those excessive foreclosure charges are given below:-

i)Loan No. HHELUD00466917, amount of charges Rs.1,99,993.59P

ii) Loan No.HHLLUD00292761, amount of charges Rs.2,80,499.37P

iii) Loan No.HLAPLUD00199636, amount of charges Rs.2,62,924.80P

iv)Loan No.HHLLUD00466892, amount of charges Rs.1,17,484/-

v) Loan No.HHLLUD00377419, amount of charges Rs.97,313.40P

So, virtually loans of amount of Rs.3,99,00,000/- were availed, but excessive foreclosure charges of Rs.9,58,215.16P claimed by Ops from the complainant. It is also claimed by complainant as if he got knowledge regarding decrease of interest rate by the Reserve Bank of India on the loans, but despite that Ops have not reduced the interest and EMI’s accordingly. So, by claiming that Ops adopted unfair trade practice, this complaint filed for seeking refund of excess charged amount of Rs.9,58,215/- with interest 24% per annum paid by the complainant    to Ops. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10 lacs and litigation expenses of Rs.33000/- more claimed.

2.                Arguments for admission purposes heard.

3.                From the details of amounts referred above, it is made out that virtually reimbursement of amount of Rs.9,58,215/- plus compensation       amount of Rs.10 lac is sought. Additionally litigation costs of Rs.33000/- claimed and as such total relief claimed is of Rs.19,88,215/- plus 24% per annum interest on the excess charged amount. The dates, on which, the excess charged amount paid by the complainant not disclosed deliberately in the complaint, but from perusal of documents Ex.C11 to Ex.C13, it is made out as if these demands raised by Ops on 13.7.2018 and as such virtually amount of interest @24% per annum claimed from the date of payment, which is shown as 14.11.2018 in Ex.C6 to Ex.C9. This means that complainant is claiming interest on amount of Rs.9,58,215/- @24% per annum atleast w.e.f. December 2018. By including interest @24% per annum on amount of Rs.9,58,215/- for period of 8 months until filing of complaint(because complaint filed on 2.9.2019), it is made out that interest of amount of Rs.2,00,000.00P(2lacs)virtually is claimed on alleged excess paid amount. Aggregate of amount of interest, costs, compensation amount and amount of which reimbursement is sought as such is more than Rs.21 lac.

4.                As per case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 others vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd-2016(4)CPR-83(N.C.), it is the aggregate value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by the consumer plus the amount of claimed interest and the compensation amount, which are to be taken together for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. As the value of the goods purchased i.e. of availed loans is Rs.3,90,00,000/-, but aggregate value of claimed relief is more than Rs.21(twenty one) lacs and as such certainly this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Being so, complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the appropriate authority/Commission.

5.                Sequel of the above discussion, complaint ordered to be returned to complainant with observation that complainant can present the complaint before appropriate authority/Commission in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. Photocopies of documents may be retained. Copy of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

6.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Jyotsna Thatai)                            (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:14.11.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.